They have "better" things to do than worry about some "peasant". Like their six figure pensions and lobbying deals
That's the "neo" part of "neo-liberal".
The government has historically tried to avoid doing so, but had to dip into the funds in 2016–2018. The rules around spending was formalized in 2001 [2], but the extent to which Norway was dipping into the funds has been controversial the last few years, with economists warning that it puts the country at risk in a future economic downturn.
Norway's wealth fund is actually codified as law, which makes it difficult for a future government to "steal" it.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/norway-st...
[2] https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/norsk...
We simply don't do corrupt to any significant degree. Probably the niftiest social trick the Scandinavian societies ever evolved.
Come to think of it, I was offered a bribe today, just a few hours ago. Turned it down without even thinking.
It's one thing when politicians steal for themselves. It's another thing entirely when they steal for their friends.
The problem with being a uniform thorn in everybody's side is you run out of friends.
If he wasn't biased there would be a lot more public support for him.
Don't waste too much effort defending Mueller. Just like with e.g. Comey who was praised before he was reviled before he was praised, alternate orders on Mueller will soon come through for you. The war pigs are not pleased with his performance.
No we don't. Stop spreading propaganda. Even if they were the source, there's no evidence that Assange knew who the source was.
> Read the indictments.
Indictments != convictions.
> Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU.
Let's say he did. That does not mean he knew where they came from, or even that he received them from the same/original source.
Once an allegation has been defended against cross-examination in a court, it might make the transition to fact. (Or it might totally fall apart. I doubt the charlatans at Crowdstrike would fare well under cross. "You mean you never actually examined the servers, and just took your clients' word that they had properly imaged the hard drives before destroying them? These were the same clients who had placed similar servers that neither you nor FBI ever examined in a restroom next to a toilet?") You're probably ill-informed enough to think that court proceeding has happened already. To be better informed, you should read more reliable journalism.
There are only a handful of conspiracy against the US charges, and they are all related to Ukrainian interests long before the 2016 election (which were related to pro-US Ukrainian interests).
So yes, there are many Mueller indictments, but they do not fit the (now discredited) Russia-Gate narrative. Yes, Trump is surrounded by all kinds of criminals (and almost certainly is one himself) but this should be a shock to nobody -- he hired people directly related to mafias in several countries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic...
The Barr summary has been disputed by some of Mueller's team but those disputes are in relation to the obstruction of justice questions.
As for the Russian indictments, I'm not sure if there's much to say. Quite a few of the indictments are related to sockpuppet accounts and Facebook ads (illegal but not to the degree suggested by the tone of the media coverage). The ones related to Russia hacking the DNC were disputed by some research done by Bill Binney and a bunch if other intelligence veterans[1] -- showing some evidence that the information must have been leaked by an insider because the transfer speeds were too fast for exfiltration over the internet. Unfortunately all the people indicted are Russian nationals and thus won't face prosecution in the US, so we won't ever know what the truth of the matter is.
[1]: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-r...
Why did Mueller put on such a goofy show, when he knew all along he would indict no American for "Russian collusion"? He was throwing his friends in the media a bone. They've pushed this long enough to guarantee Trump's reelection, which is all they ever wanted. Ratings gold!
I've already donated to Tulsi. Have you?
Your talking points don't stand up to reading the indictments.
I am skeptical, and I've always been skeptical. You seem instead to be credulous. The topic of the day is bullshit, so skepticism is more appropriate than credulity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
Simple people imagine that "freedom of speech" is primarily good for the speaker. In fact, it's good for everyone in USA to know true facts about their politicians, no matter who publicizes those facts.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights...
What would you say about this article? I have Little knowledge about Assange
My accusation of lies was about that, because there have been leaks of all manner of countries (Russia included) through Wikileaks.
As for that article, I have no idea whether Assange is a Russian operative now, or has been in the past. There are interesting links, for sure, and after the threats of drone strike and execution from various US government officials I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to hurt the US.
So I don't know if he is or isn't. He may very well be.
As I said above though, my initial accusation was intended for another poster that (falsely) claimed Wikileaks never leaked anything about Russia.
Too little too late there, Australia.
By your host country maybe (though I don't agree it's as cut-and-dry as that), but your home country will still treat you as a citizen regardless of your other citizenship statuses (except in the case you are a citizen of your host country). So they should still give you the same aid they'd give any other citizen -- and in some cases the UK has actually helped UK citizens flee a country even though they are a citizen of said country (examples include forced marriages of dual Iran/UK citizens in Iran).
Care to elaborate? What kind of benefits one could get out of it? There's tons of information on topic from biased sources like law firms, but very little otherwise.
In many countries you can't have two. But as long as "dual citizenship" is recognized, there is no upper limit.
Older people probably value choosing favourable healthcare systems too. Nations aren't static entities, I'd doubt you'd find many people willing to bet on a single country's circumstance being exactly the same 30 years from now.
For the wealthy gaining dual/multi citizenship is common across the world and plenty of Western nations sell it off willingly.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...